Author Topic: Q: What's the difference between a sportsman and a criminal? (Read 5271 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #45 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:04:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
Waco?...try again

Think about it.

Small arms mean absolutely dick.

BlkKnit · « **Reply #46 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:04:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dune
AFAIK, there is not a state in the Union that allows hunting with full-autos. And I'm not aware of any that allow you do use a silencer.

However, there many who use semi-auto's for hunting. Why not use a AR-15 for hunting javelina or white tails? And Browning sells lots of its semi-auto BAR's to hunters.

well, yeah a BAR comes in many excellent hunting rounds. And yes for smaller game a .223 is good. Most folks prefer a bit more punch, and some over-do it (300 WinMAG?..geez) But, hunting with these rifles is not the point...anyone ever here of target shooting? You know, shooting for the fun of it?

BlkKnit · « **Reply #47 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:07:54 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Think about it.

Small arms mean absolutely dick.

Ah, well ok...dont want to get into Waco.

muckmaw · « **Reply #48 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:08:48 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
Waco?...try again

He's right BK.

They were armed to the hilt and the ATF went in and took 'em out.

Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?

Sure, we'd take some with us, but an AR-15 ain't much against an F-15.

Oh, Miko, BTW, if you want to debate with me, keep the snide little biatch like comments to yourself.

"Uuuuuhhh...Of course it is too much to expect you to actually read - and understand ...Uuuuhhh"

Wow, that was good. Really, it hurt. No, serious.

Sandman · « **Reply #49 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:11:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
Ah, well ok...dont want to get into Waco.

No worries... I'm not arguing for or against the actions of the government at Waco. Just reminding you that they did all of that without one of these:

BlkKnit · « **Reply #50 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:43:40 PM »

Guys, I am not sure I believe all that stuff about Waco. And really, I dont want to discuss it.

Its the idea that we own guns to set up revolutions that bothers me, its not revolution I was speaking of. I dont know what I am trying to say. Its hard to describe a "feeling". I couldn't take out a tank with my .22 peashooter, all of us together couldn't do it. Its the guy driving that tank who sees us in his sights, and sees friends, family, neighbors, that matters. If I were some boob out to overthrow the Gov't then he would shoot. If I were just a guy who is standing up with his community and saying the gov't did wrong somehow, then maybe he wouldn't (I hope). Its the community of the nation that keeps the gov't on the straight and narrow (well, sort of) and its our constitutional right to bear arms. Thats a big part of it, IMO. I believe many people own guns because they can, and I believe they should be able to. I also believe that if you dont want to, thats your business. The point that many here have made, that we dont need this or that gun and should not be allowed to own one bothers me. What I use them for is irrelevant, most of my guns may never get fired again, but I am keeping them. Keep your guns safe if you have them, keep yourself safe.

BTW Sandman, I think I misunderstood what you were saying anyway, sorry

Quote
Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?

Muck, I do believe that, because as I illustrated above its the people of this country who would be doing it. On many levels the South was wrong when they seceded from the union, but it was a test of the national community, the state communities, etc. that showed the strength of our system in the end. It was not the "Gov't" that defeated the rebels, it was the national community. If I thought we had no such ability to actually be "the voice" of our nations conscience I dont know if I could get out of bed in the morning. ~~and dont take it personal, but I am at a loss to explain why banning guns is a bad idea, or why i feel that way.~~

Sandman · « **Reply #51 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:50:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
It was not the "Gov't" that defeated the rebels, it was the national community.

You do realize that Union conscription took place between 1863 and 1864?

Approximately 15,000 of the draftees actually served.

Dune · « **Reply #52 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:53:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
But, hunting with these rifles is not the point...anyone ever here of target shooting? You know, shooting for the fun of it?

For fun? You mean you can own a gun and have fun with it? You mean to tell me that you can buy a gun and not be living in constant fear of having to defend yourself against a criminal and/or the government? Or be some insane, crazed killer of people and God's finer creatures? Get out!

Dune · « **Reply #53 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:57:25 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
.

Do you honestly believe, if they wanted to, the US Military could not roll all over any resistance it's populace could put up?

Just like they did the Viet Cong? And there weren't 60 million of them with over 200 million guns.

BlkKnit · « **Reply #54 on:** September 25, 2003, 10:59:12 PM »

Yes. (15,000 or 150,000?)

The draft was instituted and they served. It was a mistake in my opinion, and unnecessary, stemming from desperation and lack of patience on the Gov'ts part. I get your point though

Sandman · « **Reply #55 on:** September 25, 2003, 11:00:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
Yes. (15,000 or 150,000?)

I believe it was 15,000 that served but approximately 250,000 were actually drafted.

BlkKnit · « **Reply #56 on:** September 25, 2003, 11:07:18 PM »

Ridgecrest, huh? I grew up in and around Bakersfield.

Sandman · « **Reply #57 on:** September 26, 2003, 12:03:11 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlkKnit
Ridgecrest, huh? I grew up in and around Bakersfield.

Yeah... been here about 13 years... I've grown attached to it.

Drunky · « **Reply #58 on:** September 26, 2003, 12:06:41 AM »

A small squirrel told me that the 2nd ammendment wasn't to defend against the British. The Simpsons were wrong about this.

The founding fathers were very suspect of a strong centeralized governement and included the 2nd ammendment as a way for the inidividual people to defend themselves against another possible tyrinnical monarchy.

SaburoS · « **Reply #59 on:** September 26, 2003, 02:19:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
No worries... I'm not arguing for or against the actions of the government at Waco. Just reminding you that they did all of that without one of these:

We seem to be having trouble against the tankless Iraqi resistance.

Waco is not necessarily a good example of an armed resistance movement against the govt. They stayed put in a fixed location. Even if they did have tanks, they'd of lost. The govt would have brought to bear even more force. They also had very little numbers as well.
Imagine what a large (lol, highly unlikely actually given our relative freedom to supposedly choose our own govt.) percentage of the populace that were armed with only small arms could accomplish being somewhat organized and very mobile and hidden.